DOCSLIB.ORG

How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare 0 How Technology Impacts Doctrine in Asymmetric Warfare Jeremiah Rozman Northfield Vermont Bachelors of Arts, University of Vermont, 2014 A Thesis presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Foreign Affairs University of Virginia May, 2016 1 Abstract How does technology impact military doctrine, and how does this in turn impact political support for offensive, preventative or preemptive military action?1 I study defensive weapons systems, specifically focusing on missile defense in the theoretical context of technology and defense-based strategies as a whole. Through the study of Israel’s use of Iron Dome, I aim to demonstrate that technology can be an exogenous factor affecting military doctrine. Through careful case study analysis, I demonstrate that operationally successful defensive technologies can lead to the adoption of a defensive military doctrine by decreasing the political cost of inaction to the extent that allowing attrition becomes politically less costly than launching an offensive. Introduction A comparison of Israel’s two recent wars in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead in 2008/9 and Operation Protective Edge in 2014, indicates that the tactical success of Iron Dome, as a defensive military technology, can effect a change in military doctrine. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the effect of an unexpectedly successful defensive military technology on military doctrine, an effect which leads to prioritizing defense, allowing attrition, and moving away from a long-standing offense-based doctrine, specifically when dealing with asymmetric conflict. This study focuses on Israel, specifically in the Gaza theater of conflict and not in the Northern theater of conflict where Israel’s adversary, Hezbollah is 1 Preemptive war is defined as actor A launching a first strike in order to gain advantage in a situation where an attack by actor B is anticipated to be imminent. Preventative war is when actor A is worried about the possibility that actor B is increasing its capabilities and preparing for the right time to strike actor A, but the strike is not imminent although it is expected sometime in the future, and actor A strikes actor B with the goal of minimizing the risk of a future strike by actor B. Both of these actions are examples of an “offense is the best defense” strategy. I argue that successful defensive technology makes both of these actions less likely through its impact on political incentives. 2 considered to have strategic capabilities on par with a state actor, and is thus considered a symmetric threat by the Israeli defense establishment.2 Despite the specificity of this case, this study has broad implications. Iron Dome provides an opportunity to study the effect of defensive technology on doctrine while alleviating the concerns of endogeneity stemming from the possibility of reverse causality. The intuitive reasoning here is that technologies are researched and adopted in order to better carry out an existing military doctrine. This was arguably the case with the Maginot Line, which was built by the French with the primacy of defensive advantage in mind immediately following WWI, where “prevailing weaponry and means of transport strongly favored the defender” (Shimshoni 1990, 188). Iron Dome’s unexpected success allows the research of its effect on doctrine by alleviating concern that it was an earlier shift to defensive doctrine that led to the creation of Iron Dome in the first place. The study of Iron Dome is a first step towards gaining broadly generalizable insights into the effect of technology on military doctrine. As military technology rapidly evolves along with the threats faced globally, understanding the political and strategic consequences is vitally important. I demonstrate that tactically successful defensive technologies can lead to defensive doctrine, which in turn can manifest itself in inaction, attrition, and ad hoc warfighting, all of which can give the initiative to the opponent. Finally, as a distinct issue for future research, how does this affect deterrence and intensity of conflict? Once the link between technology and doctrine is established, the door is opened for an examination of how a shift towards defensive doctrine can lead to prolonged conflict and increased casualties as well as other adverse political and economic consequences, thus suggesting the possibility of perverse effects of successful technology. Theories of Technology, Defense, and Doctrine 2 Former Chief of Staff Benny Gantz outlines Israel’s strategy regarding a future conflict with Hezbollah as continuing to be swift and decisive action to bring the attack to the opponent. This is due to the conclusion that Hezbollah has the capabilities to overwhelm Israel’s missile defense (Gantz 2015). 3 There are two ways of deterring an adversary. The first is through denial, ensuring that they cannot achieve their objectives. Mearsheimer argues that this is impossible because a determined adversary will always find a way to get around even those defenses perceived to be the tightest. (Mearsheimer, 1983). The second is the threat of punishment, imposing costs if they try to achieve their objectives. Missile defense, and defensive tactics are of the first type of deterrence. Launching an offensive is always a riskier strategy and involves the politically costly possibility of the risk of high casualties. Furthermore, when deterring a non-state adversary, the political costs of an offensive strike in terms of legitimacy and proportionality are greater than the less ambiguous necessity of self-defense against foreign aggression from another state. A state’s focus on the less politically costly defensive strategy makes the punishment and cost imposition approach less attractive, especially as the defensive denial approach becomes more and more operationally successful. Thus, one likely effect of operationally successful defensive weapons systems is strengthening the hand of doves in government, making preemptive or preventative action less likely, leading to the adoption of a defensive military doctrine.3 While a strong defense might make it seem futile and certainly wasteful for an adversary to continue armed opposition, it cannot provide a decisive knockout blow or impose further costs, other than wasted resources on the adversary and even allows the adversary a propaganda tool as they are able to continue to fire as a popular symbolic act without expecting an offensive retaliation. For a significantly weaker opponent, merely engaging in military action, regardless of its ineffectiveness, creates a powerful propaganda and recruiting potential; resistance can be an end in itself. Adding to this, if the adversary can prolong aggressive action, this disrupts the state’s economy and civil order even if the defensive system is highly effective. Furthermore, if a state has a strong defense, the level of threat they will tolerate without intervening is thereby increased, allowing an adversary to become better prepared, better armed and more entrenched. Due to these factors, defensive mechanisms creating deterrence through denial are not as 3 This is not always the case. Note the case of Hezbollah in footnote two. 4 likely to be as effective as deterrence based on the threat of a strong offensive response or preventative action, and the operational success of defensive technologies decreases the likelihood of specifically that. I argue in this respect, that there is no perfect defense. The unexpected operational success of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-ballistic missile technology has boosted the political attractiveness of defense, creating a shift in Israeli military doctrine. Regarding the 2014 Operation Protective Edge in the Spring 2015 issue of Middle East Quarterly, Eitan Shamir writes, “Jerusalem was unable to land a decisive knock-out blow… protected from the direct effects of the Palestinian missile barrage by the Iron Dome, an efficient warning system and numerous bomb- shelters, the Israelis adopted a strategy of gradual attrition of Hamas military infrastructure. However, attrition comes with a price. Instead of a short operation, the fighting lasted fifty days. Lengthy operations go against Israel's security doctrine as well as military planning. As a whole, the IDF is designed for quick and decisive operations, at least in theory” (Shamir, 2014). Shamir suggests that Iron Dome was the decisive factor, impacting political incentives to shift Israeli military doctrine to a more defensive position. This research examines Israel’s experience with Iron Dome to shed light on how technology can affect military doctrine. Upon demonstrating this, the next step for further research is to explore the hypothesis that a shift in military doctrine from offensive cost imposition to defensive denial leads to longer and more severe conflict, in which case the operational success of defensive technologies may be a hindrance to strategic success. This is an area that has not been very thoroughly studied and has substantial and currently applicable implications for states all over the world. The importance of this study will only increase as military technology advances and new types of threats emerge. I stress that I am not suggesting that highly operationally successful defensive technologies should not be developed or used. I am attempting to bring recognition to possible adverse strategic effects of technologies which in themselves bring huge tactical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Asymmetric Warfare - the Siege of Fallujah
    ASYMMETRIC WARFARE - THE SIEGE OF FALLUJAH Csér Orsolya Abstract: Asymmetric warfare is a tactical process based on policy objectives which can be used to force our will upon the enemy. The non-traditional, inexpensive actions involving material damage and human casualties (such as terrorism, deployment of weapons of mass destruction, threat of using them, information warfare); guerrilla- and partisan-type raids implemented with simple tools and techniques are considered its basic advantages. All these are usually the weapons of the party fighting in the occupied territories (eg. bombings, suicide attacks, actions against logistics, command posts, attacks against officers, command staff, destruction of supply routes and transportation routes). The detection of these weapons and the psychological preparation of the soldiers is very difficult, because the offenders do not comply with the conventions of warfare. The siege of Fallujah in Iraq, which wrote itself into the history books as one of the most infamous and serious insurgencies and in which the media and propaganda played a major role, is regarded as an example of asymmetric warfare. Keywords: asymmetry, insurgency, guerrilla, civilians, civilian victim, propaganda, military gain 1. Introduction Asymmetry doesn't mean anything other than the lack of symmetry between the belligerents, partially or wholly. Asymmetric warfare is: "A warfare for the sake of precisely outlined political aims, often based on ideological, religious, ethnic community of several organizations, implementing military and non-military operations, tactics and techniques building upon direct and indirect effects and intensifying each other's effects, endangering different dimensions of security, mainly tactical procedures, with whose effect altogether we may force our will upon the enemy." All of this is such an activity that can be connected to asymmetric challenges, when the executors - in most cases not even sparing their own lives - execute military actions, and is usually done against a belligerent on a higher technological level.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Cyberwarfare Randall R
    This article was downloaded by: [University of Pennsylvania] On: 28 February 2013, At: 08:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Military Ethics Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/smil20 The Ethics of Cyberwarfare Randall R. Dipert a a SUNY (State University of New York) at Buffalo, NY, USA Version of record first published: 16 Dec 2010. To cite this article: Randall R. Dipert (2010): The Ethics of Cyberwarfare, Journal of Military Ethics, 9:4, 384-410 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2010.536404 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Journal of Military Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 4, 384Á410, 2010 The Ethics of Cyberwarfare RANDALL R.
    [Show full text]
  • Asymmetric Warfare Thematic Bibliography No
    Public Diplomacy Division Room Nb123 B-1110 Brussels Belgium Tel.: +32(0)2 707 4414 / 5033 (A/V) Fax: +32(0)2 707 4249 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.nato.int/library Asymmetric Warfare Thematic Bibliography no. 10/10 Les guerres asymétriques Bibliographie thématique no. 10/10 Division de la Diplomatie Publique Bureau Nb123 B-1110 Bruxelles Belgique Tél.: +32(0)2 707 4414 / 5033 (A/V) Fax: +32(0)2 707 4249 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.nato.int/library How to borrow items from the list below : As a member of the NATO HQ staff you can borrow books (Type: M) for one month, journals (Type: ART) and reference works (Type: REF) for one week. Individuals not belonging to NATO staff can borrow books through their local library via the interlibrary loan system. How to obtain the Multimedia Library publications : All Library publications are available both on the NATO Intranet and Internet websites. Comment emprunter les documents cités ci-dessous : En tant que membre du personnel de l'OTAN vous pouvez emprunter les livres (Type: M) pour un mois, les revues (Type: ART) et les ouvrages de référence (Type: REF) pour une semaine. Les personnes n'appartenant pas au personnel de l'OTAN peuvent s'adresser à leur bibliothèque locale et emprunter les livres via le système de prêt interbibliothèques. Comment obtenir les publications de la Bibliothèque multimédia : Toutes les publications de la Bibliothèque sont disponibles sur les sites Intranet et Internet de l’OTAN. 2 Books Livres* 2010 355.1 /00058 Moral Dilemmas of Modern War : Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Conflict - Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • STRIKING FIRST – Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. STRIKINGFIRST Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy KARL P. MUELLER JASEN J. CASTILLO FORREST E. MORGAN NEGEEN PEGAHI BRIAN ROSEN Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Asymmetric Warfare: a State Vs Non-State Conflict
    OASIS ISSN: 1657-7558 [email protected] Universidad Externado de Colombia Colombia Lele, Ajey Asymmetric Warfare: A State vs Non-State Conflict OASIS, núm. 20, julio-diciembre, 2014, pp. 97-111 Universidad Externado de Colombia Bogotá, Colombia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=53163822007 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Asymmetric Warfare: A State vs Non-State Conflict* Ajey Lele, Ph.D.1 Research Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), India [email protected] ABSTRACT Key words: Asymmetric, warfare, strate- gy, non-state actor, terrorism. Asymmetry in warfare is not a new phenome- non. Historically, it has been observed that on various occasions there has been a marked Guerras asimétricas: difference in the relative military power and un conflicto entre Estado strategy of the warring states. However, in the post 9/11 era, it has been observed that the versus actores no estatales character and nature of war itself is changing particularly amid the wars between state and RESUMEN non-state actors. The usage of unconventio- nal tools and tactics, be it guerrilla warfare La asimetría en la guerra no es un fenómeno or terrorism or irregular warfare or any other nuevo. Históricamente, se ha observado que forms are becoming more synonymous with en varias ocasiones ha existido una marcada non-state entities. All this is leading to a com- diferencia en el relativo poder militar y estra- position of warfare in which a non-state actor tégico de Estados en guerra.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrasting Perspectives and Preemptive Strike: the United States, France, and the War on Terror
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Maine, School of Law: Digital Commons Maine Law Review Volume 58 Number 2 Symposium: French and American Perspectives Towards International Law Article 12 and International Institutions June 2006 Contrasting Perspectives and Preemptive Strike: The United States, France, and The War on Terror Sophie Clavier Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr Part of the International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Sophie Clavier, Contrasting Perspectives and Preemptive Strike: The United States, France, and The War on Terror, 58 Me. L. Rev. 565 (2006). Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol58/iss2/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maine Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 566 MAINE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 58:2 CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVES ON PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, AND THE WAR ON TERROR Sophie Clavier· I. INTRODUCTION A few years ago, Samuel P. Huntington's article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS, "The Clash ofCivi/izations?" 1 described a "West vs. the Rest" conflict leading to the assumption of an essentially unified Western civilization settling "[g]lobal political and security issues ... effectively ... by a directorate of the United States, Britain and France" 2 and centered around common core values "using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will ..
    [Show full text]
  • Irregular Warfare
    THEMATIC BIBLIOGRAPHIES NO. 6/2009 IRREGULAR WARFARE LA GUERRE IRRÉGULIÈRE Bibliographies thématiques No. 6/2009 · To contact us : · NATO Library Public Diplomacy Division Room Nb123 1110 Brussels Belgium Tel. : 32.2.707.44.14 Fax : 32.2.707.42.49 E-mail : [email protected] · Intranet : http://hqweb.hq.nato.int/oip/library/ · Internet : http://www.nato.int/library · How to borrow items from the list below : As a member of the NATO HQ staff you can borrow books (Type: M) for one month, journals (Type: ART) and reference works (Type: REF) for one week. Individuals not belonging to NATO staff can borrow books through their local library via the interlibrary loan system. · How to obtain the Library publications : All Library publications are available both on the NATO Intranet and Internet websites. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- · Pour nous contacter : · Bibliothèque de l'OTAN Division de la Diplomatie Publique Bureau Nb123 1110 Bruxelles Belgique Tél. : 32.2.707.44.14 Télécopieur : 32.2.707.42.49 E-mail : [email protected] · Intranet : http://hqweb.hq.nato.int/oip/library/ · Internet : http://www.nato.int/library · Comment emprunter les documents cités ci-dessous : En tant que membre du personnel de l'OTAN vous pouvez emprunter les livres (Type: M) pour un mois, les revues (Type: ART) et les ouvrages de référence (Type: REF) pour une semaine. Les personnes n'appartenant pas au personnel d l'OTAN peuvent s'adresser à leur bibliothèque locale et emprunter les livres via le système de prêt interbibliothèques. · Comment obtenir les publications de la Bibliothèque : Toutes les publications de la Bibliothèque sont disponibles sur les sites Intranet et Internet de l’OTAN.
    [Show full text]
  • AFDD 2-3.1 Foreign Internal Defense
    FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE Air Force Doctrine Document 3-22 15 September 2007 Interim Change 2 (Last Review), 1 November 2011 This document complements related discussion found in Joint Publication 3-22, Foreign Internal Defense. BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE DOCTRINE DOCUMENT 3-22 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 15 SEPTEMBER 2007 INCORPORATING INTERIM CHANGE 2, 1 NOVEMBER 2011 SUMMARY OF CHANGES The Air Force Doctrine Working Group has reviewed this document and recommended that it remains valid and will again be reviewed no later than September 2012. AFDD numbering has also been changed to correspond with the joint doctrine publication numbering architecture. AFDD titles and content remain unchanged until updated in the next full revision. A margin bar indicates newly revised material. Old Number New Number Title AFDD 2-1 changed to AFDD 3-1 Air Warfare AFDD 2-1.1 changed to AFDD 3-01 Counterair Operations AFDD 2-1.2 changed to AFDD 3-70 Strategic Attack AFDD 2-1.3 changed to AFDD 3-03 Counterland Operations AFDD 2-1.4 changed to AFDD 3-04 Countersea Operations AFDD 2-1.6 changed to AFDD 3-50 Personnel Recovery Operations AFDD 2-1.7 changed to AFDD 3-52 Airspace Control AFDD 2-1.8 changed to AFDD 3-40 Counter-CBRN AFDD 2-1.9 changed to AFDD 3-60 Targeting AFDD 2-10 changed to AFDD 3-27 Homeland Operations AFDD 2-12 changed to AFDD 3-72 Nuclear Operations AFDD 2-2 changed to AFDD 3-14 Space Operations AFDD 2-2.1 changed to AFDD 3-14.1 Counterspace Operations AFDD 2-3 changed to AFDD 3-24 Irregular Warfare AFDD 2-3.1 changed to AFDD 3-22 Foreign
    [Show full text]
  • Preventive War
    Georgetown University Law Center 2003 Working Paper Series in Public Law and Legal Theory Preventive War by David Luban This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=469862 PREVENTIVE WAR David Luban1 The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq had three stated justifications: a legalistic argument that the war was necessary to enforce United Nations resolutions in the face of Iraqi defiance, a humanitarian argument that the war would remove a brutal dictator, and a preventive war argument that, in the words of President Bush’s National Security Statement (NSS), the U.S. must “stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends,” which requires acting “against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.”2 While the legalistic and humanitarian arguments are by no means unimportant or uncontroversial, the preventive war argument forms my topic in this paper. Not only was it the principal argument offered by the U.S. government, it represents an important revision in just war theory and the law of armed conflict. In addition to the three stated justifications for the Iraq invasion, pundits, analysts, and critics offered a number of putative justifications beyond those the government was willing to acknowledge. The influential journalist Thomas Friedman, who supported the war, argued that creating a vibrant, successful democracy in Iraq would spur reform of the despotic and 1 This paper was prepared for a roundtable discussion at the August 2003 American Political Science Association revisiting Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare Edited by William A
    International Review of the Red Cross (2013), 95 (891/892), 763–767. Multinational operations and the law doi:10.1017/S1816383114000149 BOOK REVIEW Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare Edited by William A. Banks* Book review by R. James Orr, Dean of the School of Criminal Justice and Social Sciences of Tiffin University. Dean Orr is a retired US Navy judge advocate specialising in international and operational law and served as deputy legal adviser to NATO Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation from 2004 to 2008. As the active engagement of US and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) troops in the conflict in Afghanistan winds down, the challenges of that conflict, and the legacy of challenges of the conflict in Iraq, continue to resonate in the policy discussions within governments and in academic literature. Throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century, legal literature has reflected an effort to adapt to what has often been characterised as a new era of conflict.1 Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare, edited by Professor William Banks, is but one of the latest contributions to this literature. The second publication of collected essays produced under the aegis of Syracuse University’s Institute for National Security and Counter-Terrorism,2 the book provides a collection of well-researched and well-supported papers that serve the legal community. Both publications propose practical analytic approaches intended to help decision-makers and practitioners, as well as scholars, deal with an extremely * Published by Oxford University Press USA, 2013. The views expressed here are those of the book reviewer alone and not of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Attitudes on Preventive War and the “Preemption Doctrine”
    CHINESE ATTITUDES ON PREVENTIVE WAR AND THE “PREEMPTION DOCTRINE” Scott A. Silverstone 2009 INSS RESEARCH PAPER US AIR FORCE INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES USAF ACADEMY, COLORADO Chinese Attitudes on Preventive War and the “Preemption Doctrine” by Scott A. Silverstone* July 2009 With the release of President Bush‘s first National Security Strategy (NSS) in September 2002, the administration articulated a bold claim about the use of military force that had been crystallizing in American strategic circles over the previous decade. According to a central element in the emerging ―Bush Doctrine‖, launching attacks against so-called rogue states suspected of pursuing weapons of mass destruction was a normatively legitimate strategically necessary response to the changing threat environment. This paper examines the attitudes on preventive war in the case of the Peoples Republic of China. Specifically it asks how Chinese elites – government officials and academics – view preventive war in the wake of American efforts to recast the preventive war norm and the invasion so Iraq. How do Chinese elites react to the logic and normative claims at the heart of the Bush administration‘s ―preemption doctrine‖? Do Chinese elites reject it in normative terms reminiscent of the anti- preventive war attitudes prevalent in the United States during the decades after World War II? Or have Chinese elites accepted America‘s position on this issue as a precedent that the Chinese government itself might mobilize politically in potential conflicts on its periphery? With the release of President Bush‘s first National Security Strategy (NSS) in September 2002, the administration articulated a bold claim about the use of military force that had been crystallizing in American strategic circles over the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Suicide Terror Movement in Afghanistan Matthew Dearing1
    The Culture & Conflict Review Vol. 2, No. 3, Summer 2008 Examining the Suicide Terror Movement in Afghanistan Matthew Dearing1 “When you do not have guns or bomber planes then your body is the only weapon that you use to resist people killing your families.”2 What is behind the surge of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and suicide attacks in Afghanistan? Suicide attacks in particular are a recent phenomenon in Afghanistan, increasing by 42 percent from 2006 to 2007.3 This article will examine some of the factors behind the increasing use of suicide and IED attacks as tactics of unconventional warfare in Afghanistan. It will analyze the strategic environment in which these types of operations are used and provide some policy recommendations for countering future IED attacks. It is important to understand that unconventional warfare is a “strategy of necessity” for the weaker side in an insurgency.4 As an asymmetric warfare tactic, suicide terrorism provides incentives for insurgents. In Afghanistan, IED and suicide missions are founded upon three fundamental aims – to compel the United States and ISAF to leave the perceived homeland of Pashtuns, to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. backed government in Kabul, and to create a desperate environment that provides little alternative but to join the suicide jihad movement. While current evidence shows the Taliban have been only slightly successful in changing perceptions, the momentum could easily shift to their advantage. Current Events & Trends Recent attacks have been the most violent since U.S. operations began in 2001. On February 17, 2008, more than 100 Afghans were killed when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives vest at a dog-fighting match, targeting the chief 1 Matthew Dearing is a Research Associate with the Program for Culture & Conflict Studies.
    [Show full text]